State v. Lang

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Lang

396 A.2d 1012, 1979 Me. LEXIS 652

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJanuary 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 396 A.2d 1012 (State v. Lang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lang, 396 A.2d 1012, 1979 Me. LEXIS 652 (Me. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appealing from a conviction for unlawful sexual contact, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(1)(C), the defendant, Robert W. Lang, assigns as his single point of error that he was not convicted by an impartial jury.

We deny the appeal.

The gist of the defendant’s argument is that four jurors in his trial were among the jurors in the immediately preceding trial which had convicted another individual of a like offense [17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(1)(A)] upon another victim before the same presiding Justice. He further argues that under such circumstances and with the underlying facts of both cases virtually identical we should invoke our obvious error exception. M.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

Defendant acknowledges that he made no objection, general or specific, to the jury makeup. On the contrary, when asked by the presiding Justice whether the jury was satisfactory, defendant responded in the affirmative. He offers no reason why we should not invoke our rule that failure to raise an objection to the jurors at voir dire typically waives the point on appeal. State v. Chattley, Me., 390 A.2d 472, 478 (1978).

Moreover, the record on appeal is utterly inadequate. What little documentation we have was included in defendant’s brief in contravention of M.R.Crim.P. 39. Even considering these matters, we conclude that they do not substantiate defendant’s factual claims concerning the prior trial. Nor does the State concede that the cases were similar. Defendant’s bald factual assertions in his brief are not appropriate substitutes for the record on appeal. State v. Woodward, Me., 383 A.2d 661, 663 n.2 (1978).

We have recently held that “[wjhen an inadequate record is presented to the Law Court to support an appeal, such appeal must fail.” Berry v. Berry, Me., 388 A.2d 108, 109 (1978); accord, Grondin v. Coyne, Me., 395 A.2d 459 (1978). No different result occurs in the criminal realm. State v. Bellanceau, Me., 367 A.2d 1034 (1977).

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

ARCHIBALD and NICHOLS, JJ., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appealing from a conviction for unlawful sexual contact, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(1)(C), the defendant, Robert W. Lang, assigns as his single point of error that he was not convicted by an impartial jury.

We deny the appeal.

The gist of the defendant’s argument is that four jurors in his trial were among the jurors in the immediately preceding trial which had convicted another individual of a like offense [17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(1)(A)] upon another victim before the same presiding Justice. He further argues that under such circumstances and with the underlying facts of both cases virtually identical we should invoke our obvious error exception. M.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

Defendant acknowledges that he made no objection, general or specific, to the jury makeup. On the contrary, when asked by the presiding Justice whether the jury was satisfactory, defendant responded in the affirmative. He offers no reason why we should not invoke our rule that failure to raise an objection to the jurors at voir dire typically waives the point on appeal. State v. Chattley, Me., 390 A.2d 472, 478 (1978).

Moreover, the record on appeal is utterly inadequate. What little documentation we have was included in defendant’s brief in contravention of M.R.Crim.P. 39. Even considering these matters, we conclude that they do not substantiate defendant’s factual claims concerning the prior trial. Nor does the State concede that the cases were similar. Defendant’s bald factual assertions in his brief are not appropriate substitutes for the record on appeal. State v. Woodward, Me., 383 A.2d 661, 663 n.2 (1978).

We have recently held that “[wjhen an inadequate record is presented to the Law Court to support an appeal, such appeal must fail.” Berry v. Berry, Me., 388 A.2d 108, 109 (1978); accord, Grondin v. Coyne, Me., 395 A.2d 459 (1978). No different result occurs in the criminal realm. State v. Bellanceau, Me., 367 A.2d 1034 (1977).

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

ARCHIBALD and NICHOLS, JJ., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 A.2d 1012, 1979 Me. LEXIS 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lang-me-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack